Present: Bob Alan (HOTS); Rebecca Doherty (CDL); Pat French (UCD);  
Crystal Graham (UCSD); Carol Hixson (UCLA); Rebecca Utz (recorder) 
  

Doherty's memo ("Record distribution options") was mentioned and the group would 
like to discuss it soon. 
 

Regarding FTP Options- 

Graham mentioned that she had noticed in Doherty's memo as well as in an e-mail 
from Alan, that the assumption was being made that the central cataloging 
agency (CCA) would be doing the work in OCLC, rather than in  the CCA's 
local catalog. There are tradeoffs which need to be understood in both 
ways of doing it. If the cataloging is performed and output from OCLC there would 
be an export cost of 16 cents a record, however all campus systems could 
load the records without special load programming.  A key question is how 
the output file should be sorted to deliver campus-specific subsets of CDL 
materials; this may be more problematic if OCLC is the exporting system. 
It seems unlikely that OCLC would be willing to sort CDL material into 
customized output files (i.e., without charging significant extra fees). 
Another option would be for the CCA to do the cataloging on its local 
system and output fields directly to campuses.  The chief advantage of 
doing the cataloging locally would be that the CCA could sort the records 
for distribution by campus and OCLC exporting fees would be avoided. 
Loading output from a local system at another campus could involve the need for 
new load programs however.  Both of the options primarily pertain to modifying 
existing print records to create a single, composite record.  New title cataloging 
would still be done on OCLC, regardless of which distribution path is chosen. 

Susan Starr (AUL for Sciences at UCSD and formerly at CDL) has indicated that most 
major Tier 1 and 2 purchases have already been made.  The quantity of new 
acquisitions is expected to taper off from here.  This means that most, if not 
all, Tier 1 and Tier 2 titles have already been cataloged by UCSD.  If UCSD 
becomes the CCA, their local records could be modified with the few CDL-specific 
additions or changes and then directly output.  UCSD normally updates the OCLC 
record when any standard editing is done locally as a part of their participation 
as a CONSER Enhance library. 
 

Regarding 856 field presentation in Melvyl Web- 

Doherty reported that she had spoken to a Melvyl Web programmer and the 
programming to display the 856$3 should happen soon.  The display order will be 
$3, $z, $u, per the first TFER report.  All subfields except $m, $n, $o, $w, and 
$x, will be displayed in the public displays. 

French asked if Doherty knew what the timing would be for labeling the 856 field 
by campus, and Doherty said she would give the group an update when there was 
news. 
 

Regarding TFER2 web site- 

French reported that the Dec. 18 minutes will be posted soon. 
  

A.  COLOR (007 field) 

The code for color will be used if the entire site is multicolored.  Otherwise, 
the group agreed to use "$d u" (not known to be in color) for all records 
rather than^Ôdifferent codes for monochrome, grey scale, and mixed.  Many of 
the home pages for journals are in color, but the actual text is black & white 
PDF format, making it problematic to specify color or black and white. 

B.  SOUND (007 field) 

If the site is known to have sound, the sound byte will be coded accordingly. 
Otherwise, the group agreed to use "$f u" (sound unknown) for all records, because 
precisely defining this point would require the^Ôcatalogers to have sound cards and 
headphones, and most public access machines do not have sound cards. 

C. CALL NUMBERS (050/090 fields) 

Call numbers in the bibliographic records do not display in Melvyl, and the group 
affirmed that a call number displayed in the holdings area for Internet resources 
would not be appropriate.  The group discussed whether the CCA would be expected 
to include (i.e., assign) a non-displaying call number for other purposes such as 
collection analysis. UCSD's policy is to not include a call number 
for electronic journals.  UCLA would not want to have the call number added if 
it were not in an OCLC record but also would not want the call number deleted if 
it were in an OCLC record. French reported that UCD bibliographers find the call 
number useful for collection analysis. 

Graham expressed concern that a library might have a system that would 
automatically overlay print records when loading the new records, and 
wondered if the call numbers should be deleted if they appear in the print 
record. 

The group agreed that it is not necessary for the CCA to add a call number if it 
is not already on the OCLC record, but the call number should be retained if 
it is on copy.  Local campuses can add a class number or a call 
number if they want it in their records. 

D.  ISSNS OF ELECTRONIC VERSION (776 field) 
 
The group discussed whether the ISSN for an electronic version should go in the 
776 field and/or in a second 022 field.  The 776 (Other Physical Form) is the 
correct field, however the Melvyl A&I linking program does not link with the 776. 
The group favored using the 776 field, but asking CDL-T to investigate adding 776 
to the linking program.  This has been discussed before but not specifically 
pursued.  If CDL staff does not think it's advisable to add 776 to the linking 
program, we can reconsider whether linking with the electronic version is 
important enough to add the electronic ISSN in a second, non-standard 022 field. 

ACTION: Doherty will follow up with CDL on whether 776$x could be added to the 
linking program. 

There was discussion of whether to require the 776 field in the record when the 
electronic has been separately cataloged in the OCLC database.  In general, we 
thought perhaps it would be best to leave it if it is 
in the record and not to add it if it wasn't, but a final decision on this 
should wait until Hayman can give her input. 
  
E.  530 FIELD 

In her e-mail outlining the proposed single record guidelines Graham mentioned 
that the CDL record may not be the master record so the 530 notes will sometimes 
only display in the MARC record in Melvyl. 

The group discussed the CCA's wording of the 530 note, and whether we want a 
standardized wording that does not vary for CDL titles.  It was agreed that the 
agency could have latitude concerning the exact wording (i.e. 
World Wide Web or Internet could both be acceptable), and that local libraries 
could change the wording as it suited their needs.  There is a preference for 
accepting wording found on copy when it conformed closely with our guidelines 
rather than requiring particular wording changes.  Another question is how general 
or specific the 530 note should be.  It was agreed that general notes are more 
useful because there is less likelihood that they will need changing in the future; 
however the 530 should at the same time convey enough basic information so as to 
be actually useful.  The CCA will provide samples as guidelines. 

F.  ACCESS RESTRICTIONS (530, 856 notes) 

The group agreed that there was no need to add access information in the 530 note 
if the information is going to be in the 856$z, but that if the copy contains a 
note that was not misleading, it would not be necessary to remove it.  530 notes 
with access restriction information take many forms, including: 

530 Available also on the Internet; restricted to institutions with a site/user 
        ID and password. 
530 Also available to subscribers via the World Wide Web with title: 
        Hematology and cell therapy electronic edition. 
530 Available via the Web (requires UC IP address and UC user ID/password) 
530 Available on the Internet (UC users only) 

G.  SYSTEM DETAILS 

The group agreed that if system requirements are unusual (for example, something 
other than PDF, HTML, or PostScript is necessary to view the item), including 
information is useful in a 530 note.  The CCA will be the judge as to whether a 
particular file format or viewer software needs to be mentioned. 

H.  COVERAGE (530, 856 notes) 

The group agreed that if the holdings are in the 856$3 there is no need to also 
include the information in the 530, but a general note would be acceptable if it 
is already in the record.  We would want to avoid mentioning specific content or 
coverage in a 530 note because this may change with time. 

I.  ONLINE TITLE VARIES 

The 530 note should record the presence of an online title which varies from the 
print so that a title added entry can be added. 

ex: 
530 Also available on the World Wide Web with title: Journal of democracy online. 

The title added entry would be given in a 740 field (see discussion in section 
"L" below). 

J.  CORPORATE BODIES ASSOCIATED WITH ELECTRONIC RESOURCES 

When a publisher or other organization is integral to the production of the 
electronic version, it should be mentioned in the 530 note so that a 
corporate body added entry can be made. 

ex: 
530 Also available on the World Wide Web through Project Muse. 

The corporate body added entry can then be given in a 710 field, if it is an 
authorized name. 

The CONSER guidelines for the single record do not currently include adding 710 
added entries.  The group agreed that this is still a good idea because it 
provides an important access point in a standardized way.  We will adopt this 
approach and perhaps suggest it to CONSER also. 

This led to a discussion of how to handle other, non-authorized names for 
electronic collections and projects. 
  
K.  COLLECTION ADDED ENTRIES 

UCSD has been making local added entries for electronic collections titles in a 
793 field.  The 793 field might not work for all local libraries for this purpose 
because it may not be indexed in local systems and it is also not indexed in 
Melvyl.  We discussed the pros and cons of using a local added entry field for 
searching purposes and agreed that overall it would be preferable to put added 
entries in a 710, 730 or 740 whenever possible.  Many collection names have not 
been established through NACO.  It was agreed that it would be beneficial to 
everyone to have these names set up through NACO, however, and Graham agreed that UCSD could create authority records for our current list.  They will be 
established as either 710s or 730s as appropriate.  UCSD will then make the 
established headings available (probably on a web site) for UC libraries to 
consult and will tag the CDL records to include these headings. 

L.  SUBJECT HEADINGS 

The group agreed that LC headings should be required on all records, MeSH headings 
should be required for medical and biological science electronic resources, and if 
a print record has only MeSH headings, to add LC headings to it. 

Regarding CDL headings: 

UCSD has had some discussion about whether they could adopt the CDL subject 
vocabulary instead of their own local headings for electronic resources.  At this 
time,  there is a reluctance to do this because they might not be able to assign 
headings in more than one subject area of the CDL hierarchy and also because they 
do not want these headings to retrieve only CDL-licensed titles.  We have received 
an e-mail reply from Brian Warling indicating that these two concerns may not be 
accurate.  Hixson suggested that we speak with Warling to get a clearer idea of 
how the CDL vocabulary is actually applied. 
[NOTE: Warling spoke with Susan Starr and clarified that these concerns were 
unfounded.] 

ACTION: Hixson will contact Brian Warling about the CDL subject headings. 

Regarding local genre heading: 

The group agreed to include a local genre heading "Online resources" 

ex: 
655 [1st ind. Blank][2nd ind. 7] Online resources. $2 local 

UCSD records already have this heading. 

M.  TITLE ADDED ENTRIES (740 field) 

CONSER guidelines say that adding the variant title for electronic journals must 
be in the 740 field (not in the 730).  The group agreed to follow this. 

The idea of adding an "artificial" added  entry with the word "online" following 
the title in order to make it easier to browse was discussed.  The group decided 
to postpone a decision about this until we receive input from other interested 
parties (i.e. colleagues at other campuses). 

************************************************************************* 

The next meeting will be on Friday, Feb.5 from 10-12.  We will continue to discuss 
the guidelines and also assess the tasks remaining vis-a-vis meeting the Feb.15 
deadline.